As a system of doctrines Liberalism may be called a school; if
we regard it as an organization of adepts for the purpose of
spreading and propagating its doctrines, it may be called a sect;
inasmuch as it is a group of men seeking the political
enforcement of its doctrines, it may be called a party. But in
whatever aspect we consider it, whether as a school or sect or
party, it presents itself in various degrees or shades; yet none
the less liberalism because variant; for with specific and
logical unity there may be a multitudinous variety.

Now the unity of Liberalism is not positive but negative; it
has no unity of its own; it is by virtue of its opposition to
truth, which is essentially one, that Liberalism becomes
accidentally one. As the visavis of truth it possesses the unity
of opposition. The different degrees of its denial will
constitute the degrees of its opposition, and so give us the
varieties in (31) the negative unity of its denial. Denial is its
unity in general, and this ranges through the entire realm of
negation, the degree of denial being determined by the degree of
truth denied. If men were absolutely logical and followed the
premises which they lay down, to their ultimate conclusions, they
would become angels or devils in working out the consequences
according to the goodness or badness of their first principles.
But men are not always logical; they often stop short of the
consequences logically flowing from the premises preceding. We,
therefore, as a rule, see the good only half good and the bad not
altogether bad. Hence we find few outandout Liberals. Not many go
the full length of their principles. They are nevertheless true
Liberals, that is, veritable disciples, partisans or followers of
Liberalism, ranging themselves under the banner either as a
school, sect, or party.

There are Liberals who accept its principles, but reject the
consequences, at least those most repugnant or extreme. For
instance, there are men who believe that the Catholic Church is
the great enemy of modern progress, the one great object in the
way of the triumph of their principles. Why not then openly
persecute the Church, and endeavor to wipe her from off the face
of (32) the earth as Nero or a Domitian sought to do? No; they
would not go to this extreme, although it is the practical
consequence of their premise. Or again, if they shrink from the
terrors of bloodshed and the horrors of assassination, why do
they not close our Catholic Schools, the nurseries of the faith?
To permit the existence of these schools is to allow the active
and rapid propagation of the faith. If Catholicity be the evil
they affirm it to be, would they not be perfectly logical in
nipping it in the bud, that is, in the school room? But no, they
would not go so far. Yet the suppression of the Catholic
parochial school is the surest means to strangle the faith in our
midst. Why should there be any compunction in rooting out the
greatest evil, in their estimation, which afflicts our age, the
one great dike against the flood of human "liberties",
now rising almost to the level of the opposing barrier? It is
because these Liberals are inconsequential; they shrink from the
logic of conclusions.

Again, there are Liberals who accept such and such conclusions
or their application, but scrupulously repudiate the principles
whence they flow. They believe, for instance, in absolutely
secularizing education, and yet reject the doctrine of atheism,
which is the only soil congenial to its (33) growth. They applaud
the result, while they repudiate the cause.

Some would apply Liberalism only to education; others only to
the civil order, and others still, only to political life.

It is the most advanced alone who seek to apply it to
everything and for every thing. The attenuations and mutilations
of the liberal Credo are as many as the interests advanced or
balked by its application. It is generally supposed that men
think with their heads; but their intelligence often has less to
do with it than their hearts, and not infrequently their stomachs
determine their conclusions. Liberalism is thus often measured
out by the dose according to the taste of the consumer, as
liquors are to drinkers according to the appetite of each. This
one, in comparison to his more advanced neighbor, who appears to
him a brutal demagogue, is no Liberal at all, while his less
advanced neighbor is, in his eyes, an outandout reactionary,
rooted in a stagnant past. It is simply a question of degree,
whose grades slide variously along the liberal scale, some nearer
some farther from the abyss. From the Baptized or even surpliced
Liberal, who boasts his breadth of mind in his easy toleration of
error, to the avowed atheist who hurls his open defiance against
God, the difference is only one of (34) degree. One simply stands
on a higher rung of the same ladder than the other. Observe when
pushed to the wall, how all alike claim the same denomination of
liberal. They may even regard each other with aversion, but all
invoke the same appellation as finally descriptive of each. Their
common criterion is "liberality" and "independence
of mind;" the degree of application will be measured by the
individual disposition, the more or less in the matter depending
upon the variety of elements in the makeup of the individual and
his surroundings; selfinterest with one, temperament with
another, education with a third impeding a too rapid gait on the
road to absolute Liberalism; human respect may moderate another,
serving as a balance weight to his rashness; family or school or
business relations may clog the footsteps of a fourth. A thousand
and one things may serve as a break to a too accelerated descent,
not to mention that satanic prudence which counsels a
conservative advance in order not to alarm the timid. This last
fashion of procedure often serves as a mask to the most advanced
Liberals, who hide their designs under the appearance of a frank
demagoguery. Sometimes Liberalism stalks along in the careless
trappings of an easygoing good nature, or a (35) simplicity of
character which invites our affection and allays our suspicion.
Its very candor in this guise is an aggression difficult to
resist. It does not appear responsible and excites our compassion
before it has awakened our aversion. We seem to forgive it before
we accuse it. But all the greater is the danger when it appears
least possible.

Such are the various fashions of Liberalism. Its disguises are
many, its degrees various. Withal, however, it is the same evil,
though motley be its trappings. Liberalism is one, while
Liberals, like bad wine, differ in color and taste.